Cutthroat

Summary

Buried Bones – “Cutthroat”

Podcast: Buried Bones (Exactly Right & iHeartPodcasts)
Date: April 9, 2025
Hosts: Kate Winkler Dawson (Journalist, True Crime Author), Paul Holes (Retired Cold Case Investigator)

---

Overview

In this episode titled "Cutthroat", Kate and Paul dissect the unsolved 1892 case of Katie Dugan, a pregnant 17-year-old found brutally murdered in Wilmington, Delaware. The pair examine the investigation from both a historical and modern forensic perspective, exploring the limitations of the era, the cultural stigmas surrounding pregnancy out of wedlock, and the challenges of building a viable case without today’s scientific tools. With a focus on victimology, suspect profiling, unreliable witnesses, and telling parallels to another infamous case, the hosts interrogate the available evidence while reflecting on the persistent vulnerabilities faced by women in society.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Setting the Stage: Crime and Vulnerability

• The recurring theme: Many historic true crime cases involve vulnerable young women, a reality the hosts note hasn't changed much even in the modern era.
  • “We just keep going backwards in time and it's the same old story.” – Kate (08:02)
  • Paul highlights the added risks women face, especially when alone at night, and how little this has changed over time.

The Discovery (09:03–13:17)

• Victim: Katie Dugan, 17, found murdered in a field.
• Scene Details:
  • Fully clothed except for her hat (10 feet away).
  • Pool of blood under her head.
  • Battered and bruised eyes.
  • Throat slashed so deeply she was nearly decapitated—straight razor found nearby.
• Forensic Commentary:
  • Paul explains the mechanics and implications of such a wound, noting that deep slashes from a straight razor, while gruesome, may not always indicate extreme rage, but simply the lethality and sharpness of the weapon. (11:21)
  • Discussion of blood pooling and possible sequence of injuries (was she subdued first, defensive wounds, etc.).

Victimology & Societal Context (20:27–24:09)

• Katie's background:
  • Pregnant (four months), unmarried, living with her parents after working as a domestic.
  • Pregnancy was unknown to her family; marked social stigma in 1892.
  • “Homicide is the leading cause of death for women who are pregnant and in the postpartum period in America.” – Kate (21:03)
• Paul immediately considers:
  • Possible involvement of the biological father.
  • Risks of exposure for the man involved.
  • The relevance of social circles and potential for jealousy or scandal-motivated violence.

Suicide vs. Homicide (24:09–25:55)

• Initial police theory: Could the murder have been staged as a suicide?
• Paul dismisses the plausibility due to:
  • The battered and bruised eyes suggest violence pre-throat cutting.
  • The positioning and nature of the wound.
  • “Offenders often leave the murder weapon behind. So just the fact that the razor is sitting next to her does not indicate suicide.” (25:38)

Investigation: The Search for Jack (33:10–41:15)

• Key Evidence:
  • Katie received a cheerful letter addressed from “Jack” on the day she died: “Meet me on Wednesday night at the same place at the same time.” (33:11)
  • Multiple witnesses place Katie with a clean-shaven, light-complexioned man the night of her murder.
  • Katie exclaims “Oh my God” several times, heard by a young witness.
• Investigation hones in on Richard Riley:
  • Friendly/flirtatious with Katie but denies involvement/paternity, provides an alibi at a church event, and witness descriptions don’t match.
  • Laundry incident: Authorities suspicious that Riley hurriedly laundered his clothes; he claims he spilled coconut cake (43:55).
  • Alibi appears solid.

Two Years Later: Spotlight on Albert Stout / “Jack” (47:43–54:31)

• Momentum in the case renewed by Katie’s mother, who suggests “Jack” is not Jack, but Albert Stout—a 40-year-old married businessman and Katie’s former employer.
  • Power dynamics: 17-year-old employee vs. 40-year-old married man.
  • She had lived with his family and was let go months before her death, possibly related to her pregnancy.
  • Four witnesses (coming forward only now) claim to have seen Albert and Katie arguing on the night of her death, walking toward the field.
• Paul expresses skepticism over the reliability of witnesses surfacing two years later and makes a comparative analysis to a similar case from Kate’s book.

Forensics & 19th-Century Limitations (55:34–59:29)

• Handwriting analysis of the “Jack” note supposedly matches Albert’s; skepticism and limitations of 1892 forensics discussed.
  • Parallels to Sarah Cornell case (from Kate’s book) are drawn regarding anonymous letters and handwriting analysis.
• Envelopes matching those used by Albert found in his house—of limited evidentiary value.
• Paul on handwriting evidence: “It’s a comparative science...when there are significant differences, then, yes, they can form an opinion. This document contains handwriting that is different than the known handwriting from the individual...” (55:54)

Albert Stout’s (Unconvincing) Alibi (59:29–62:38)

• Extremely detailed timeline, reconstructed two years after the fact—overly precise and suspicious.
  • “No, he’s lying.” – Paul (61:00)
  • A domestic worker contradicts his alibi, stating he returned home at 9 pm, after Katie was last seen alive.
• Motive: Albert’s reputation, business, and family at risk if his affair and paternity are revealed.

Legal Standards: Then vs. Now (63:26–68:55)

• 1890s: Circumstantial but compelling—handwriting, witness statements, motive, opportunity.
• Today: Wouldn’t stand up—lack of physical/biological evidence, timeline uncertainties, unreliable witness memory.
  • “Per the expected standards of today, no.” (63:26)
  • “Relatively speaking, it’s a weak case...investigatively, this looks like the guy...but can I build a case against him or eliminate him?” – Paul (65:29)
• Case result: Grand jury refuses to indict; case remains unsolved.

Societal and Personal Reflection (68:55–end)

• Kate expresses her frustration with unresolved cases and her empathy for the victim’s family:
  • “This is why I don’t like unsolved cases. I need a conclusion one way or the other.” (68:55)
  • Paul values the challenge and potential for new insight in cold cases.
• Next week: Promised coverage of a solved case.

---

Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments

• On the repeating victimization of women:

  • “We just keep going backwards in time and it's the same old story.” – Kate (08:02)

• On the key question:

  • “Who is the biological father? What is that relationship? Is there any jeopardy that he might be under if it is found out that he has impregnated the 17 year old teenage girl?” – Paul (21:24)

• On 19th-century forensic limits:

  • “The offender is not thinking fingerprints because fingerprints were not a thing just yet in investigations.” – Kate (25:55)
  • “With Albert, he has the negative impact on his future as a result of getting Katie pregnant. And I, you know, have always said we don’t need to prove motive, but when there is possible motive, you have to pay attention to that from an investigative slant.” – Paul (49:48)

• On suspect alibis:

  • “No, he’s lying.” – Paul, after hearing Albert's detailed timeline (61:00)
  • “Are you kidding me? Two years later and you want me to kind of figure out what I did that night?... There’s just no way.” (62:38)

• On differences between past and present justice:

  • “Per the expected standards of today, no.” – Paul, when asked if the case would proceed to trial with modern standards (63:26)
  • “Relatively speaking, it’s a weak case... But back then, I think they probably put a lot of weight on the circumstances and...I’m not arguing that they’re wrong.” (65:29)

• Final thoughts on what was lost:

  • “I’m going to be thinking about Katie Dugan and her parents and just, man, I wish she had had justice here. 17, life in front of her.” – Kate (69:15)

---

Timeline of Important Segments

• [09:03]: Discussion of Katie’s murder and crime scene details
• [13:17]: Paul’s forensic breakdown of throat slashings
• [20:27]: Victimology and societal realities of pregnancy out of wedlock
• [24:09]: Suicide vs. homicide and weapon analysis
• [33:10]: Key clue: “Jack” and the rendezvous letter
• [37:23–41:15]: Eyewitnesses and the Richard Riley investigation
• [47:43]: Focus shifts to Albert Stout
• [55:34]: Handwriting analysis and forensic limitations of the era
• [59:29]: Albert’s contested alibi and other evidence
• [63:26]: Comparing 19th-century and modern investigative/justice standards
• [68:55]: Personal reflections and episode wrap-up

---

Tone and Style

The discussion is engaging, occasionally somber, and at times darkly witty—reflecting both gravitas for the historical tragedy and the hosts’ camaraderie. Kate’s careful research grounds the narrative, while Paul adds modern forensic insight and hard-boiled skepticism. Both express empathy for the victim and frustration at justice left undone.

---

Conclusion

This episode of Buried Bones exposes a haunting cold case where cultural, forensic, and legal limitations left a clear suspect unpunished. The investigation’s weaknesses and disturbing themes still resonate today, underscoring how much—and how little—has changed in the protection of vulnerable women and the pursuit of justice. While the grand jury in 1895 declined to indict, leaving Katie Dugan’s case unsolved, Kate and Paul illuminate the enduring relevance and tragic weight of such historical crimes.

Transcript

[Sponsor Voice]

This is exactly right. Every business has an ambition. PayPal open is the platform designed to help you grow into yours with business loans so you can expand and access to hundreds of millions of PayPal customers worldwide. And your customers can pay all the ways they want with PayPal, Venmo, pay later and all major cards so you can focus on scaling up when it's time to get growing. There's one platform for all business PayPal open grow today at paypalopen.com loans subject to approval in available locations.

This episode is brought to you by IQ Bar, our exclusive snack and hydration sponsor. IQ Bar is the better for you Plant protein based snack made with brain boosting nutrients to refuel, nourish and satisfy hunger without the sugar crash. The Ultimate Sampler Pack is a great way to try all IQ bar products and flavors. You get nine IQ bars, eight IQ mix sticks and four IQ Joe sticks. All IQ bar products are entirely free from gluten, dairy, soy GMOs and artificial sweeteners. With over 20,000 five star reviews and counting, more people than ever are starting their days on the right foot with IQ Bars, Brain and Body Boosting Bars, Hydration mixes and mushroom coffees. I always feel like I have to have something to perk me up in the afternoon. IQ Bars are really convenient and they taste great. And right now IQ Bar is offering our special podcast listeners 20% off all IQ products plus get free shipping. To get your 20% off, just text Bones to 64,000. Text Bones to 64,000. That's B O N E S to 64,000. Message and data rates may apply. See Terms for details. This show is sponsored by Better Help. When life gets overwhelming, who do you turn to? Maybe it's a friend or a family member. Talking helps, but a licensed therapist has.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

The training to help you work through.

[Sponsor Voice]

What'S weighing on you, not just listen. BetterHelp has over 30,000 therapists and has helped more than 5 million people worldwide, making it the largest online therapy platform out there. And it works with an average rating of 4.9 out of 5 for a live session based on over 1.7 million client reviews. BetterHelp is convenient too. You can join a session with a.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Therapist at the click of a button.

[Sponsor Voice]

Helping you fit therapy into your busy life. Plus switch therapists at any time. Sometimes you need to talk to someone.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Who doesn't have some stake in whatever you're discussing. I think everyone can benefit from therapy.

[Sponsor Voice]

As the largest online therapy provider in the world, BetterHelp can provide access to mental health Professionals with a diverse variety of expertise find the one with better help. Our listeners get 10% off their first [e-mail] buriedbones that's better. H E L P.com buried bones.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

I'm Kate Winkler Dawson. I'm a journalist who spent the last 25 years writing about true crime.

[Paul Holes]

And I'm Paul Holes, a retired cold case investigator who's worked some of America's most complicated cases and solved them.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Each week I present Paul with one of history's most compelling true crimes.

[Paul Holes]

And I weigh in using modern forensic techniques to bring new insights to old mysteries.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Together, using our individual expertise, we're examining historical true crime cases through a 21st century lens.

[Paul Holes]

Some are solved and some are cold. Very cold.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

This is Buried Bones. Hey, Paul.

[Paul Holes]

Hey, Kate. How are you?

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

I'm doing well. You were busy. That's what the crowd is saying is you're busy. I don't know who the crowd is, but that's what. That's what they say.

[Paul Holes]

Oh, you know, I have just been buried, you know, of course, recording the two podcasts and, you know, I'm actually doing a lot of training for law enforcement and I have, you know, the Othram casework. But I'm also doing an Audible project which is an active investigation. And a few weeks ago I just returned back from the Bay Area and have some new information about the case. And actually it's multiple cases, multiple homicides. It's one of my old cases. And it's a lot, you know, I'm trying to get this thing wrapped up so, you know, be ready for the listeners at some point when Audible decides to release it. But, you know, actual casework doesn't necessarily line up with production schedules.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

I know, I've noticed. I know that you have been doing just a ton of stuff, which is always great. It's an embarrassment of riches. So I'm always. And especially because you've got your foot in everything and the active investigations is what helps us the most. Being totally selfish, Paul, that's what I care about, is what actually helps the listeners in me.

[Paul Holes]

Well, you know, I appreciate that thought. You know, of course I'm doing what I used to do before I retired in a similar capacity. Not identical because I'm no longer a peace officer. I don't have access to stuff and I have to rely on law enforcement agencies and give them guidance and hope that they follow through. But trying to do that in addition to doing sort of the true crime aspect, it's turned into somewhat of a struggle Just to figure out how to allot my time. But so far I seem to be staying afloat and hopefully things will turn out good in the long run.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Is this more relaxing your schedule now than when you were working, Working with the sheriff's department or wherever you were?

[Paul Holes]

You know, it's. Well, it's very different, you know, I think, you know, the casework was always a passion and it can be stressful. But when I was active, I had other responsibilities. You know, I was, you know, with the sheriff's office. I was a division commander with the DA's office. I was a chief and oversaw investigative, UN and other things and had a lot of administrative duties. So trying to juggle casework in the administrative duties and reporting to a boss is a struggle. Now, Othram, I have a boss there, of course, but nowadays, with what I'm doing, there's a lot of independence. And I do enjoy the independence.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Yeah, I can imagine that too. I mean, I'm juggling a lot of stuff. I've got the book that came out a couple of months ago. And then, of course, those kids. I've got those two. I've got those two girls. Stinking kids who had a sleepover in my cottage. And I said, this is not what the game plan was. The game plan was that I come out here and I'm on my own. And they loved it. They had a great time. I think it was kind of spooky for them. And it didn't help that I came out at midnight and was knocking on the walls.

[Paul Holes]

Wearing some ghoul mask.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Isn't that what good parents do? I thought that's what good parents do.

[Paul Holes]

You got to keep them on their toes.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Yeah, I do that. So, you know, this. We're gonna transition to a case that I think feels familiar, which is unfortunate because we do spend an awful lot of time talking about women who are found, you know, by themselves, dead. They've been potentially attacked, and it's a mystery. I just feel like we've just said this over and over and over again, and the more we talk about things like this, you know, being alone in the dark and, you know, women feeling like they're being stalked. All of that, for me, makes it more and more clear how vulnerable women are in these stories. And we just keep going backwards in time and it's the same old story.

[Paul Holes]

Yeah. And it's such a sad state. It's very different. I can go out, let's say if I want to do a jog, I can go out jogging. At night. And the chances of me becoming a victim are much lower than if a woman were to go out at the same time. And that's. I don't know what the answer is to that, you know. You know, my entire career has been really focused on going after the men that victimize women. And I don't know, you know, how do we get this to where women can feel safe? And it sounds like you're probably going to be telling me a story from I don't know, how long ago. You know, this is just something that's been going on probably forever.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Oh, yeah.

[Paul Holes]

You know, and it's. You know, it's just. It's just sad.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

You know, this is another, I think, difficult story. It's set in 1892, so we are going very far back. Okay, so let's go ahead and set the scene. Wilmington, Delaware. I love Delaware. Love it, love it, love it. Great state. I know. I. This is like the obligatory question I always ask you, have you been to Delaware before? Have you been to Wilmington before?

[Paul Holes]

I have not been to Delaware, nor Wilmington. Or I guess if I say if I haven't been to Delaware, then of course I haven't been to Wilmington. So. No, don't know it. You know that the kind of the northeast part of the country is the. The area that I really have the least amount of experience with.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Yeah, well, luckily for us, you have a lot of experience with crime, so don't worry about Delaware. Delaware does not play a big role in this. Okay, I'm going to set the scene. You know, sometimes I build up to who's the victim and, you know, who's the killer. And in this case, we're going to just start with what investigators find. So, 1892, it's October 20th, around noon, and a man stumbles onto a horrific scene as he's crossing a field, and he's using this field as a shortcut, and it's the body of a teenage girl. There's a lot of different bits of info, so I might have to skip around on the document a little bit, depending on what you want to hear about. But let me tell you what he sees first. So she is 17, we know later she is lying on her back with.

[Sponsor Voice]

Her head turned to one side, and.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

She is fully clothed except for her hat, which is about 10ft from her body, so we would presume knocked off. And it seems pretty obvious, even to this man who finds her, that she's been the victim of something very violent. She's in a pool of blood and her eyes are battered and bruised.

[Sponsor Voice]

And her throat, her throat is so.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Deeply severed that she's almost decapitated. And there is a razor, which I'm assuming is a straight razor like you would, you know, use in a barbershop. And there is a razor on the ground beside her body. We have talked about the amount of force or the least amount of force you need to almost decapitate somebody. Can a woman do this? You know, silly things like that. So you tell me where you want to start. This is what we know so far.

[Paul Holes]

Okay, so obviously the woman is out in a field, you know, and I want to know a little bit more about, you know, what kind of access out to this field, what kind of field it is, you know, is she off of a trail or did somebody, you know, push their way through, you know, some sort of crop, you know, the razor, you know, that sounds like something that she would not carry herself. So this sounds like something that the offender would have brought to the scene. And razors, of course, are, when they're maintained, the straight razors are very, very sharp. And so I've previously discussed, because it's. It's always brought up, you know, you have a throat cut, it's near decapitation. This must show that there's just extreme violence and rage by the offender on the victim. And the reality is, is that homicidal throat slashings with a sharp edged weapon through the front of the neck, the soft tissues, the trachea, it almost always looks like it's near decapitation. That's not surprising that she has such a deep cut to her throat if the razor was in fact used to cut it. You mentioned that she's laying in a pool of blood. And of course, I'd want to see the distribution of this pool of blood. Is it, you know, consistent with her throat being cut while she's laying down? And it just. She bleeds out like that. So she was overpowered ahead of time, or has she been removed after she starts bleeding? Does she have other bleeding injuries? Does she have defensive injuries? The battered and bruised eyes, if they are in fact indicative that she was receiving blows to the face probably ahead of her throat being cut, this indicates that the offender used force to overpower her and she may have resisted. So there's some information here that gives me a sense as to what's going on. But of course, the devil's in the details.

[Sponsor Voice]

The secret to a great outfit is having the right foundation. Honeylove makes bras and shapewear that are supportive lightweight and designed to move with you. Start every outfit with Honey Love and the rest falls into place. HoneyLove is an independent female founded brand. All HoneyLove products are intelligently designed by women who actually wear them. They recently launched their new Cloud Embrace Bra. It's a wireless bra for people who love Underwire. This style is bound to sell out again, so don't wait to try it. HoneyLove Shapewear is designed to move with you. It uses targeted compression to enhance your curves instead of squeeze them. It's designed to work with your body, not against it. Treat yourself to the most advanced bras and shapewear on the market. Save 20% off [e-mail] buried Use our exclusive link to get 20% off honeylove.com buried to find your perfect fit. After you purchase, they ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Experience the new standard in bras and shapewear with honeylove. This episode is brought to you by IQ Bar, our exclusive snack and hydration sponsor. IQ Bar is the better for you Plant protein based snack made with brain boosting nutrients to refuel, nourishment and satisfy hunger without the sugar crash. The Ultimate Sampler Pack is a great way to try all IQ bar products and flavors. You get nine IQ bars, eight IQ mix sticks and four IQ Joe sticks. All IQ bar products are entirely free from gluten, dairy, soy GMOs and artificial sweeteners. With over 20,000 five star reviews and counting, more people than ever are starting their days on the right foot with IQ Bars, Brain and Body boosting bars, hydration mixes and mushroom coffees. I always feel like I have to have something to perk me up in the afternoon. IQ Bars are really convenient and they taste great. And right now IQ Bar is offering our special podcast listeners 20% off all IQ products plus get free shipping. To get your 20% off, just text bones to 64,000 text bones to 64,000 that's B O N E S to 64,000 message and data rates may apply. See terms for details.

Every business has an ambition. PayPal open is the platform designed to help you grow into yours with business loans so you can expand and access to hundreds of millions of PayPal customers worldwide. And your customers can pay all the ways they want with PayPal, Venmo, pay later and all major cards so you can focus on scaling up when it's time to get growing. There's one platform for all business PayPal open grow today at paypalopen.com loans subject to approval in available locations.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

I don't get a sense that there's blood anywhere else. It seems like it's concentrated under her head or under her throat with this straight razor. Sometimes I think, is this a crime of opportunity where somebody is walking by, he sees this young girl walking through this field, and he says, this is my opportunity. That seems unlikely, right, because he's carrying a razor. It's not like he's carrying a little gun as a. As a personal protection. I mean, this seems like something that's supposed to be threatening.

[Paul Holes]

You know, maybe, you know, but I don't know. I mean, it doesn't seem like, you know, these straight razors would be something that men would normally just randomly carry. I think determining if it's a random crime or not really relies more on the victimology. You know, what is her life patterns? Why is she. Would she normally be passing through this field? You know, different details like that. The presence of the razor may indicate that the offender had violence on his mind when he left, wherever he left. Or maybe he's a. He's a barber, and this is his tool of trade, and he always has one tucked away.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

That would be a coincidence, I get.

[Paul Holes]

But you're.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

You could be right. I guess we'll find out. Yeah, we do have some suspects, and we'll see what they do for a living. Maybe your barber theory will come through. It will make things a lot easier. I don't know. If I were a barber, I'm not sure I would use a straight, straight razor, but that would point right to me. Okay, so let me tell you what. I'm gonna jump around a little bit. So this is what we hear the coroner says when they end up doing an autopsy. So he says that Katie. Her name is Katie Dugan, that Katie had both of her carotid arteries severed. And then this says, as well as her internal and external jugular veins. And that now this is, you know, an assumption here. The depth of the slash to her neck suggests that the perpetrator was very strong. We just sort of talked about that. What do you think about that?

[Paul Holes]

Well, you know, the fact that both carotids. The carotids lay underneath the jugulars. So, of course, just by the fact that both carotids are cut indicates that it's a very deep incision, which is not surprising oftentimes with cut throats, if the cut is more geared towards one side or the other. And this sometimes could indicate which hand the offender is holding the weapon in. At the time he cuts the throat. But you'll see, you know, the left jugular and the left carotid cut while the other ones are intact on the other side of the neck with both carotids being cut and both external internal jugulars being cut. This tells me that this throat cut was deep and cut, I wouldn't say necessarily straight across, but cut through the neck on both sides of the neck. And this is where I would not be surprised if it's low enough down on the neck that it possibly went through the trachea. And I've actually seen that as well, where I'm looking down the trachea of somebody who has had their, their throat cut. This is basically sudden death for Katie. You know, in essence, you know, she's. As soon as her carotids are cut, her brain is no longer receiving a blood supply and in essence, within 10 seconds she's unconscious and there's nothing that could be done to save her.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Well, I'm glad that this happened quickly because it sounds horrific. So I know that this is a gruesome question and those are the kinds of questions I ask on this show. Do you, as the offender need to be behind Katie to make this kind of cut or can you be standing in front of her? I don't think I've ever asked this question before about throats being slashed.

[Paul Holes]

It's either, okay, in terms of the relative position of the offender to the victim at the time that the throat is cut. You know, there can be some indicators, however, there's so many variables that I don't think you can make a definitive statement as to their relative positions just based off of how the throat was cut.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Okay, so now let me tell you a little bit about Katie because we do need to have some victimology here. I think that we do have a coroner's inquest, but I think it's more an inquest where they know it's murder, but they want to discuss more of the circumstances. Because the last detail that the coroner gave us is that she was this 17 year old girl, four months pregnant. And I'm going to say it one more time. I say this in book talks, I say it all the time. The National Institute of Health says that homicide is the leading cause of death for women who are pregnant and in the postpartum period in America, leading cause of death is homicide. It is when women are most vulnerable. So four months pregnant and I will say she is not married and she lives with her parents. Recently she moved back in with her parents. So 1892, this would have been quite scandalous. So what do we think so far? Obviously this adds another dimension to Katie's life.

[Paul Holes]

Well, immediately, you know, my mind goes to, okay, who is the biological father? What is that relationship? Is there any jeopardy that he might be under if it is found out that he has impregnated the 17 year old teenage girl, Then the other side is, is she in a relationship with a man who she got pregnant by and there's a jealous ex lover, stalker, somebody that is really upset that she's in this other relationship. So those are going to be kind of two things immediately on my mind. However, right now we don't know if this is somebody that even knows her. But this is where the victimology starts to come into play. It's like, okay, given this time frame, 1892, 17 year old girl, unmarried, who is four months pregnant. We know that this is something that society at that point in time is not going to be kind in thinking about. And this could cause jeopardy on whoever, you know, is who's responsible. Especially, you know, let's say it's, you know, as an example, you know, a religious figure from the church he attends, you know, and so he may resort to violence in order to protect himself. And that right now is just sort of a, you know, speculative type of scenario. But we know that based off of other cases that we've done that that is a real scenario during this time, even today. You know, that would be something that would have to be considered. You know, the victimology ends up sometimes pointing within the victim's own social circles. And you evaluate who's within her social circles that would benefit from her death.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Well, her parents say they had no idea that she was pregnant, which if they're telling the truth, I believe she was four months pregnant. She could have at four months covered that up.

[Paul Holes]

Sure.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

So I'll tell you more about Katie. She had been a domestic worker, live in domestic worker. She moved back in with her parents. We don't know why just yet. But word of the murder and her pregnancy comes as a shock to the whole community. So here's an interesting thing. So the investigators initially when they look at the scene, they think that whoever killed her put this razor right next to her to make it look like she took her own life. Then of course they immediate, thankfully they immediately dismiss that. And I know that we've talked about people have taken their own lives with razors before, which I just find horrific. But they immediately say, just based on the cuts, it just doesn't seem like something she could do to herself. But you have had, without being too graphic, you've had instances where people really have been able to get it do a really deep cut on themselves.

[Paul Holes]

Yes. No. I have a case where an adult male killed himself by cutting his throat. Now, within that case, there was other indicators that he did it to himself. There were hesitation marks. Somebody who is getting ready to cut, cut into themselves oftentimes has to build up the courage, and they do that by dragging the weapon over. Let's say they're going to cut the wrists. You'll often see several very superficial types of either linear abrasions, like it's not even cutting the skin, but it's just superficially damaging the skin, or more superficial cuts before you get the deeper cut that actually is fatal. Same thing with this gentleman with his neck. You could actually see some of the hesitation marks. And he had also other knife play that he had done to himself as he was really mentally struggling. So they're, you know, this is evaluating the totality of the circumstances. But yes, somebody like, as an example with Katie, could she have cut her own throat with a razor? And could it have been very deep? Absolutely. What argues against her doing this to herself, at least on the surface, is the battered and bruised eyes. Now, could she have have been doing something to herself that caused that? Possibly, but that's where it's. It's really kind of digging into what is going on with her, what are her injuries, and what is the totality of everything that that's being assessed. Offenders often leave the. The murder weapon behind. So just the fact that the razor is, you know, sitting next to her does not indicate suicide. You know, this is something that's very common. It could be a gun, it could be a knife. We see that all the time. And it's truly hom side.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Right. And you know, the offender is not thinking fingerprints because fingerprints were not a thing just yet in investigations.

[Paul Holes]

Right.

[Sponsor Voice]

Fall is here, and it's the perfect time to update your wardrobe with pieces that feel great and look even better. Quint makes it simple to stay warm, look sharp, and save while you do it. Quint has all the elevated essentials for fall. Think 100% Mongolian cashmere from $50 washable silk tops and skirts and perfectly tailored denim. The best part, everything with quince is half the cost of similar brands. And Quint's only works with factories that use safe, ethical and responsible manufacturing practices and premium fabrics and finishes.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

I think my favorite, favorite thing is this lightweight cotton cashmere V neck sweater which is the one I have that I love is charcoal gray and actually I have a black one too.

[Sponsor Voice]

Keep it classy and cozy this fall with long lasting staples from Quince Right now go to quince.com bones to get free shipping and 365 day returns on your next order. That's Q-U-I-N C-E.com bones for free shipping and 365 day returns.

Quince.com bones every business has an ambition. PayPal open is the platform designed to help you grow into yours with business loans so you can expand and access to hundreds of millions of PayPal customers worldwide. And your customers can pay all the ways they want with PayPal, Venmo pay later and all major cards so you can focus on scaling up when it's time to get growing. There's one platform for all business PayPal open grow today at paypalopen.com loans subject to approval in available locations.

Tired of spills and stains on your sofa? WashablesOfAs.com has your back featuring the Annabe Collection, the only designer sofa that's machine washable inside and out. Where designer quality meets budget friendly prices. That's right, sofas start at just $699. Enjoy a no risk experience with pet friendly stain resistant and changeable slipcovers made with performance fabrics. Experience cloud like comfort with high resilience foam that's hypoallergenic and never needs fluffing. The sturdy steel frame ensure ensures longevity and the modular pieces can be rearranged anytime. Check out washablesofas.com and get up to 60% off your annabe sofa backed by a 30 day satisfaction guarantee. If you're not absolutely in love, send it back for a full refund. No return, shipping or restocking fees. Every penny back. Upgrade [e-mail] Offers are subject to change and certain restrictions may apply.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Let's get to the coroner's inquest because I have a question, a technical question. I've never asked you this before. They hold. I. No, no, no. You'll be. This will be fine. Don't panic.

[Paul Holes]

Paul, stump the dummy time.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

No, no panic. Okay. So the coroner's inquest is held and witnesses are brought in one by one and they are not allowed to listen to each other's testimony. Is that right?

[Paul Holes]

Well, that should be standard. So whether it be a coroner's inquest or actually at trial, you know, you want the witnesses to get up there and testify to what they know and not be influenced by something that they've heard by other witnesses on the stand. So typically, like even I, as whether I was a criminalist or working as a csi, I was not allowed inside the courtroom, you know, while other witnesses are going on the stand. And then I would. I'd be sitting on the hall. Sometimes I'd be out in the hall for a week, you know, waiting to get on the stand, just the way things played out. And then I would go in and testify. I have no idea what the other witnesses have said. All I can do is talk about what I know and what in my. The opinions that I can express. So it sounds like if they are barring these witnesses from coming in. Well, that's good. You know, that's what I would expect as being the standard in order to get independence in the testimony from each of these witnesses.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Okay, well, good. I'm glad to hear that from the beginning, they're doing things right. They're confirming this is definitely not a suicide. And they're, you know, making sure nobody hears the testimony at this coroner's inquest. So let's keep going and see if they continue to do a good job here. Okay. First one on the stand is James Dugan. So this is her father, and he says that he last saw his daughter the night before. So this would have been Wednesday the 19th. She was found the next day on the 20th in the field. It's, I mean, no surprise. Her body was rigid and, you know, it probably was a cool night. It was in October in Delaware. So James says that as he was leaving, he saw a man lingering near the house. So not inside the house or in front of the house? Near the house. He didn't recognize this guy. This was a stranger to him. And he didn't see. Think very much of it. So about 8:05, according to her sister, Katie went outside and then she vanished. That was it. And then they found her the next day. Katie had told her sister Lizzie that she'd be back in just a couple of minutes. But she didn't really say to Lizzie at least where she went. She didn't come back. And her family assumed that she decided to stay at an aunt's house nearby. Again, this is where we go back to telephones and text messaging. And there's no landlines here, even where you have to make assumptions. And there's such a delay because they didn't have instant communication back then.

[Paul Holes]

Sure. What I'm hearing Katie is telling her sister, I'm going outside. I'll be back in A few, few minutes. The fact that she's notifying her sister sounds like this was not a normal thing that she would be doing. So she's just saying, hey, I've got to go do this. I don't know what's, you know, if there's some type of task that she would need to go outside to do some sort of chore. But is there like a pre arranged meeting? That is what I'm starting to think about. Especially with dad seeing some strange man lingering around outside again is, you know, how busy is this neighborhood? You know, are these like, you know, today's California neighborhoods with a whole bunch of houses that are around or are these very isolated houses where somebody shouldn't be near the house if they didn't have business at the house?

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Yeah, and I get the impression that this is kind of just a suburban street. Neighbors, you know, there are other houses around, not isolated, but that's a good point. It does sound like she's just gonna hop outside. I don't know if it's to have a conversation with this stranger for a few minutes, but the mystery deepens here. So her mother, who is named Katherine Dugan, says that Katie had received a letter in the mail, in the post a few hours before her death. She reads it, she stuffs it into her pocket and she seems very cheerful. So Lizzie, Katie's sister said that she kind of looked over her shoulder and she saw the name Jack written on the letter.

[Paul Holes]

Okay.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Of course, we don't have a. I don't have a copy of the letter, but the police do find the letter in her pocket. And it says, meet me on Wednesday night at the same place at the same time. So there you go, some kind of a rendezvous in some way. And she seems happy and she's four months pregnant.

[Paul Holes]

I guess where, you know, where I'm going in hearing about this is of course, Jack becomes very interesting in terms of her homicide. You know, Katie's cheerful, sounds like somebody that, that, you know, this Jack is somebody that she actually likes and is not scared of. So Jack is. Is somebody that needs to be investigated. And then the other possibility is, is who did Jack tell that he was going to be meeting Katie? You know, is there. Is that information? Has it been broadcast to where? Now somebody who wants to take advantage of Katie being isolated and now knows that Katie's going to be traveling to a certain location, can intercept Katie before catching up to Jack. And I'm assuming Jack is well and he's not dead somewhere else in a different part of the Wilmington, Delaware area.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Yes. You can trust me on that.

[Paul Holes]

Well, I don't know. You have not established trust over the course of our episodes.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

You think I'm an unreliable source at this point? Well, it wouldn't be fun if I were always reliable. Potholes. Okay, so here's the thing that is interesting to me. This is a very familiar story. And I know that I interviewed you for my book, the Sinners All Bow. But this mirrors what happened to the main character in my book, Sarah Cornell. She's pregnant. And in Sarah's case, she had been making demands of the father of the baby. She left the house. She was really cheerful. There is a letter that says, meet me at this location. It is unsigned. She goes, and the next day she is found dead, hanging from a haystack pole.

[Paul Holes]

That's right.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

So I don't know if that's the case here. Sarah was cheerful when she left the house. This takes place in Fall river, Massachusetts, in 1832. She was cheerful because it sounded like from a letter that one of the women at the house had read that the father was. Was saying, I'll take care of it. Don't worry about it. I'll take care of everything. Bring the letter with you that. All the letters that I've written with you, and we'll burn them, and I will take care of child support. So I don't know if it's cheerful because Katie likes this man or if some kind of, you know, agreement was made and this is just somebody who, you know, she ended up having an affair with or I don't know yet. But it felt very familiar when I.

[Paul Holes]

Was reading this, you know, taking the circumstances in Sarah's case into consideration. So reading into Katie's cheerfulness of receiving this letter from Jack, either, as I mentioned before, she likes Jack, you know, and it's like he's willing to meet with her after hours. She's excited about it. You know, this is a romance, and she's concerned about whether or not it's going to continue. And it seems to be reaffirmed when she receives this letter. Or maybe it's like in Sarah's case, to where now, whatever problems were going on in Katie's life, this letter is something that is going to alleviate some of those problems, and that could be the reason for her to be cheerful. So, you know, right now, maybe initially, I read too much into the possibility, okay, Jack is somebody that he's the father of the baby, and she wants to have a romantic relationship. That could be the case or maybe there's something else going on that would cause Katie to be, you know, in this cheerful mood after receiving the letter.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Well, let's continue because now we have more witnesses who may or may not be reliable. We'll see. There is somebody named James Riley, who they describe as a boy, which I have to think is, you know, 14 or under.

[Paul Holes]

Okay.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

He said he saw Katie with a man that night. The man had one arm around Katie and the other one in his coat pocket. I would not hope on the razor. I mean, that just seems odd, but who knows? I don't know. So that's one witness, another witness, actually two more witnesses. So a guy named Edward McGorach and Thomas Connell say that they saw Katie with a man that night. Also, they don't know who this person is. This was not someone they were familiar with. But based on their description, they say that he is clean shaven and he has a light complexion. There is a man in Katie's life who fits that description and I'll tell you about him in a second. But you know, according to the boy, James Riley, he said that he overheard Katie shout after they walked off in the distance. She said, oh my God, several times. And when he got home, he told his mother and sister about the encounter. And I don't think they did anything about it. So I don't have information of how distressful it was, but it didn't sound like a joyful oh my. And they were in the distance.

[Paul Holes]

Yeah. You know, it's tough to read in. In terms of what would cause Katie to yell out, oh my. Is she receiving information from this man that startles her that she's not expecting or is all of a sudden she's recognizing that this man is a threat to her. He's pulled the razor out. You know, it's not just, you know, sort of the stereotypical woman scream in the night. You know, she may be going, oh my. As she's being confronted with this person that she sounds like she potentially trusted is now turning on her. Or maybe somebody else comes into the picture. As you know, Katie and this man are walking along, you know, knows at this point, going back with what Edward and Thomas are saying. Clean shaven man, light complected.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

It's probably half a New England true.

[Paul Holes]

So no, when Edward and Thomas are saying that they're seeing Katie with this man, he's clean shaven, light complected. And you said that there was one person in her life that matched that description. Maybe I'm kind of reading you a Little bit. But now I go back to her work as a domestic worker, and, you know, I go, well, who is she working for?

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Yes. And I like that very suspicious look on your face. Okay, let me tell you about this guy. So investigators, obviously looking at her social circle, they looked at the family. So this matches the description. This light complexion, you know, and clean shaven, which, as I said, is probably half of New England, matches the description of a young man named Richard Riley. He was known to be friendly with Katie. It does not sound like they were dating, but they flirted a lot.

[Paul Holes]

Okay.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

And I don't know if this is the beginning of courting her. He says, I am clueless about this pregnancy. I think he was shocked, and investigators said he looked shocked. So he said, I hadn't seen her since two days before she was murdered. So if we assume maybe she was murdered Wednesday night, he said he saw her on Tuesday, that they had seen each other, and they made plans for that Sunday, and that was it. He said that he had not heard about the murder until several hours after the body was discovered. And he was, ironically, at the barbershop. And he found out about this. You know, I can tell you about Richard's alibi, but the investigators were alarmed enough about him that they had him testify for more than an hour at the coroner's jury. So, I mean, I know that's not a lot of information, but what do you think about what he said? He said, I saw her the day before. You know, we were friends. They were not known to be dating or sleeping together.

[Paul Holes]

Well, there's, you know, right now it's wide open. You know, I mean, he may be telling the truth. He could be absolutely lying. You know, this is pretty typical. If he's the one that's responsible for Katie's death, of course he's going to try to put distance from him and Katie from the last time they were seen together. And for him to be able to make that statement, he must have some confidence if he's the actual killer. He must have some confidence that he was able to meet up with Katie and there were no witnesses. But I need to know more. How old is Richard Riley? How did they know each other? That's kind of a curiosity, if you will.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

They just say, young man Paul. If he were probably in his 20s, I think they would have mentioned him. So it must have been someone who maybe was a few years older than Katie. But regardless, I think her father. I got the impression that her father knew him or had seen him. So if we're going off of this theory that other witnesses say there's a man walking with her, he's got his arm around her. I think that James would have thought that the man who was sort of loitering in their area, I think he would have known that this is Richard riley. I'm not 100% sure, though. Though.

[Paul Holes]

Okay, so I'm going to assume that Richard Riley is somewhat within Katie's dateable age range.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Yes.

[Paul Holes]

Yeah, that would be acceptable by society at the time. You know, of course, him being at a barber shop, you know, there's a little bit of a concern about that considering it sounds like, you know, she was killed with a straight razor that would likely be found at a barbershop. You know, digging into Richard Riley, you know, I'd want to know, you know, if he had impregnated Katie, you know, how does that impact him negatively? And would this be something as an example? Maybe he has a certain social status. Does that social status get corrupted, if you will, by having this 17 year old teenage girl being pregnant by him? Would his parents have concern? Does his dad have a concern about this? And could dad be, you know, interceding in his son's life and protecting, you know, his son's future by taking out Katie? You know, there's, there's different, different things that I'd be looking at in terms of Richard Riley. But right now he's just somebody in Katie's social circle and he's denying. And so we'll see where the clues go.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

I think one thing that investigators found intriguing was apparently what Richard wore to an event that I'm going to tell you about in a second was quickly laundered after Katie's murder. Like that same day, most likely. He says, calm down. I dropped coconut cake on this. It's not the hardest evidence in the world.

[Paul Holes]

I thought you were flirting with me somehow. You're calling me coconut cake. What is going on?

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

He ate coconut cake. Ball got it. I don't know if you've had a coconut cake. They're delicious.

[Paul Holes]

I do not like coconut.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

You don't?

[Paul Holes]

No. No. I had a bad episode with coconut cake when I was young, to the point where I threw it up and I won't eat coconut cake ever again.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Oh, no. Are you serious? You can't let childhood trauma come back like that, Paul. You have to try again. I think. Well, anyway, the police think this is the stupidest thing ever. But he said, what can I tell you? I was messy that night and I wanted to get that Stuff off of me. So let me get to the alibi though. Investigators kind of finally take their eyes off of Richard Riley because he had been very busy that night. So remember, Katie left with this mystery man, according to witnesses, a little after 8 o'. Clock. And Richard was at some kind of like a fun fair at the Sacred Heart Church, which is a local church, until about 1045 people saw him there. He was, you know, having a great time. He was very social. And he's got witnesses who say that then after he left the fair, he was home by about 11 o'. Clock. So. And I didn't know this is his family that is saying he's home. But the witnesses who said they saw a man with Katie that night with his arm around her say when they see Richard, they say this is, is not the same guy at all. So the, the pale faced, clean shaven man is still a mystery for us.

[Paul Holes]

Sure. And, and I guess one of the things I don't know is how far away is Katie's body from her house? How long would it roughly take to get to that location?

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

It's walkable. The boy sees Katie and it's not far from her house at all. She's with this man and then he says they walk off in a distance, but it's close enough to him where he can hear the oh my screams. So I don't think this is very far from her house.

[Paul Holes]

Got it. A few blocks maybe, at most.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Yeah, I think so.

[Paul Holes]

Okay.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

All of this being said, witnesses on the stand, her parents, her sister, this young man, Richard Riley. The coroner's jury says we don't have a conclusion and we can't hold him. And they weren't convinced anyway that Richard Riley was the one who did it. And thank goodness, even in 1892, they said this is not enough evidence. The case goes cold. It is brought back to life about two years later. And Catherine, who is Katie's mother, is the one who instigates this sort of new investigation. We don't know why Catherine decided this was the time to go to the police. So this would have been 1894, two years later. But she goes to the police and she said that the family feels like they know maybe who did this. And it's because she had remembered Katie talking about a man named Jack, whose name was not really Jack. So this man's name was Albert Stout. He's 40. This is disgusting to me. If this is true. She's 17 and he was a well known businessman. Katie called him Jack, but his Name was Albert Stout. He was a freight agent for a company called the Charles Warner Company. We don't know why Catherine decided to go ahead and you know, go to the police now, but the police are actually, this has been an open investigation because this has been very alarming of course to the people of Delaware that the 17 year old girl was murdered so viciously. So they have already started zeroing in on Albert as a suspect. Expect. Can you guess why?

[Paul Holes]

Now first, I think I'm a little bit perplexed that it took mom two years to come forward with this information.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Yeah, that's.

[Paul Holes]

That kind of hinks me up a little bit because it seems like pretty quick a mom would go, oh yeah, there was a guy named Jack in Katie's life, you know, once she found out about the letter.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Right.

[Paul Holes]

So that's, that's one thing. And then, and it sounds like Jack fits sort of the profile of somebody who would be hiring a younger kid in order to do work for him. So I'm assuming that Albert Stout, this Jack, was the employer of Kate as a domestic worker.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Yes. Okay, so he has a wife and three kids. He hired her. She lived there until just a couple of months before she died, but she never told her parents why she left. And if I were to guess, if we think that Catherine is, you know, being on the up and up here and she came by a couple of years later to the police, I would think that maybe she was in this time period in denial that an upstanding citizen who was 40 years old would have done anything like this. That's just a guess that her employer would have done this. I think that maybe she and the family could have thought that this was a random act and maybe it never occurred to her. And I'll make a correction. I don't know if Katie actually said that Albert Stout was jacked to her family, but to people in her life other than her family, she said that she called him Jack, I'm assuming, I mean he was married and she, I'm assume, knew that this would be a bad thing to get out, especially if he's a well known businessman, so she gave him a moniker. So I could tell you more about that or you can kind of give me your impression so far. This is obviously a power dynamic.

[Sponsor Voice]

That's terrible.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

A 17 year old and a 40 year old married man with three kids in the same house, you know, and she's pregnant.

[Paul Holes]

Yeah. But this is, I hate to use the word common. I know it is, you know, so I think you know, obviously this Albert Stout, you know, he's, you know, businessman. He's probably got a reputation within the community. Married with three kids. If he gets Katie pregnant, he has jeopardy on him. Right. This is going to, he is going to be perceived very badly. This could impact possibly the success he could have as a businessman. How he's viewed. If he's, I'm assuming he's probably involved with some sort of religious group that may look poorly upon him for doing this. Yeah, of course his wife is going to have a problem, you know, and so, you know, at least there's with, with Albert, he has the, the negative impact on his future as a result of getting Katie pregnant. So there's, and I, you know, have always said we don't need to prove motive, but when there is possible motive, you have to pay attention to that from an investigative slant.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Yeah. I mean, if you compare Albert and his life to Richard Riley, who's a young man, Albert has so much more to lose.

[Paul Holes]

Yeah.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Let me tell you a little bit about what happens here. So the assumption is that according to Katie's family, what they think happened and what investigators are trying to piece together is that they had some kind of a relationship. It sounded consensual to me. 17 year old girl and 40 year old man is not consensual. But there didn't seem to be acrimony between the two of them from the outside. She gets pregnant and the word is that she got booted out of the house. I'm assuming Albert just didn't want, you know, to have to explain anything to his wife. I don't know if this has happened before with him or not. I bet. Yes. She never told her parents why she left, which is understandable now that we know these circumstances. Investigators say that they kept in touch and they might have continued this relationship after she was booted from the house. And they find four witnesses who say that they saw Katie with Albert on the night of the murder. And I don't know why they can definitively say this is Albert stepped. And I don't know where they were two years ago. I mean, this was widely publicized and they didn't come forward. So I look at this a little bit with a jaundice because from my book, from the sinners all bow. You know, the defense and the prosecutor out there with just operatives trying to find witnesses. And I don't know if I trust any of them. Regardless, they say these witnesses said that they remember seeing Katie that night where she's with this man crying and arguing with Albert. And they said that they looked like Albert and Katie were heading directly to that field where her body was discovered hours later. And then I have some more forensic evidence, 1892 style, such as it is.

[Paul Holes]

Okay, so these four witnesses, are they being interviewed during the original investigation or two years later?

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Two years later. That's what I mean. I don't know why. Where. Where were you in 1892?

[Paul Holes]

Yeah. Okay, so, yeah, you know, you brought up the concerns about the veracity of the accuracy of these types of witnesses that come forward, you know, after two years. Are they being influenced in one way or another? You know, it does give me a little bit of pause about how much, you know, how reliable these statements are from these four witnesses. Again, it would be evaluating. You know, do these four witnesses know each other? Is there some sort of common connection between these four witnesses? You know, could they have a, you know, collaborated on a story or have been told by an individual, this is what you saw that night. You know, however, in terms of sort of the dynamics of this case, Albert Stout kind of fits the profile of who Katie's killer is. So, you know, there's. To me, there's churn with Albert just because of the jeopardy he would have having impregnated Katie. Sort of like you brought up Sarah's case earlier, Katie would be cheerful to hear from. From Albert slash Jack. Right?

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Yeah.

[Paul Holes]

Either because she still has some sort of, you know, romance ideations. Romantic ideations. Or maybe there's. She's thinking, okay, well, I'm on my own, but he's going to financially support me as I have this baby or whatever else. You know, what. Whatever the reason she's cheerful for. But he is kind of checking the boxes much more so than. Than the young Richard Riley.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Yeah. There are a couple of things. Again, the parallels between this and my book are kind of incredible. There is a handwriting expert who analyzes the note found in Katie's pocket, the one that says, meet me on Wednesday night at the same place and same time, compares it with Albert Stout's writing and says that this is a total match. I had to hire my own handwriting expert now to look. And it was so interesting to see the comparison between the suspect in my case and the letters. And this was an interesting point. So in my case, Sarah Cornell decided to copy one of the anonymous letters and send it to her sister word for word. And I sent it to this handwriting expert, and then I gave her the letter, the actual letter that was the anonymous letter, because Sarah kept that one Even though he told her to burn, she was very smart. So she said, I don't know if I've ever had a case where I could look at the victim and look at the anonymous letter, and it's the exact same wording.

[Sponsor Voice]

She copied it over.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

And to be able to compare how she would have written it versus how it was actually written. And of course, it excluded Sarah. So, you know, I don't know about 1892. I have a lot more confidence in my 2024 handwriting expert. But. But, you know, I mean, it's kind of the same practice. What do you think about that?

[Paul Holes]

You know, handwriting comparisons? You know, when there's sufficient exemplars present in order to say this is the known spectrum of handwriting characteristics from this one individual, and now you have that, you know, broad set of exemplars and are comparing it to, let's say, a letter from Jack, then, yes, you can start to see maybe some differences that you don't see in the exemplars. And there's a lot more that they can be taken a look at. And of course, today, forensically, in terms of comparison and the inks, the paper, indented writing, there's all sorts of things that that document examiners can go after. So there is, It's a comparative science, and we know that there's issues with comparative sciences. But most certainly, you know, when there are significant differences, then, yes, they can form an opinion. This document contains handwriting that is different than the known handwriting from the individual. Now, I don't think that you can say that person did not write this. You know, I think that that's probably too. Too strong of an opinion for this type of science, even though I do think that these experts do reach that type of conclusion. But it most certainly has some validity, you know, with this handwriting expert in 1892. You know, I'm sure they're not. He's not writing it with a ballpoint pen. It's probably like a fountain pen, right?

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Or pencil or.

[Paul Holes]

Sure. Okay. You know, so I don't, you know, if it's like the fountain pen, I'm not entirely sure because they, they were so artistic with their writing back in the day, you know, that there may be some. To try to copy somebody's cursive writing. Using a fountain pen to look exactly like somebody else's handwriting, I bet would be extremely difficult having just looked at, I mean, it's like calligraphy, right? It's just like, wow, you know, there, there, there's an art to it that's unique to the. The person that's writing.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

And one of the reasons why I. I hired the expertise for my book is that the defense said Sarah Cornell was an expert at mimicking someone else's handwriting. So I wanted to disprove that because it couldn't be proven or disproven in 1832. So the theory that prosecutors came up with is that Albert tried to pressure Katie to terminate the pregnancy. She said no, and then he killed her, you know, obviously to cover up his infidelity, which is a very similar thing that might have happened with Sarah Cornell's case. Case. So with Sarah's case, there were bruises at that matron's who undressed her for her funeral all over her body, like she had been in a fight. That's not the case here. So it sounds like it could have been a. If this is true, a verbal argument, maybe. And when she offered a hard no on that, then that's when he reacted with the razor.

[Paul Holes]

Yeah, it's possible, you know, but however, you know, she does have the battered and bruised eyes. If you think about. About cutting somebody's throat, you're. You're. Let's say, overpowering this person, forcing them down on the ground. Is it possible his hand is around her neck? Is there potentially some level of strangulation that's occurring? You could potentially start to see, you know, some. These smaller blood vessels, you know, starting to burst as a result of that act. And I'm. I'm sure this pathologist wasn't very sophisticated. So could there be some bruising from. From that? Or did this verbal argument escalate into a physical altercation where she's actually receiving blows to the face before her throat is cut? And that's where it's really doing a much deeper dive in terms of what these injuries to her eyes and the surrounding area are.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

They found a pack of envelopes in Albert's house that seemed to match the kind of envelope that Katie received for this rendezvous. I mean, you know, I guess they could do fiber analysis now, but it's a common envelope, I'm assuming, coming. So I'm not sure that's going to be something that's reliable. We do have an alibi, and I can't wait for you to comment on this alibi. Again, very similar to the suspect's alibi in my case with Sarah Cornell. So here's the alibi. This is two years ago, two years later. This is what he says. He says on the night of the murder, he left his house. House at 7. He went to the office. He got there at 7. 25. He does, you know, no real good answer about why he got there late and why he was working late. He boarded a horse car and hopped out a little while later at a very specific house where he placed a bill under the door on behalf of his employer. He claims that he rang the doorbell, nobody answered, so we don't know. There's no witnesses to say anything here. He said he'd forgotten to pick up some laundry. He walked a short distance to get it and afterwards he hopped on a trolley car and arrived home around 8:05. Very specific. And then he said he was in the house after that. So a coincidence that he was at the house by 8:05 when she was last seen at 8:05 by her sister walking away with a man. This is incredibly detailed. So what do you think about that?

[Paul Holes]

No, he's lying.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Well, yeah, you know, two years later.

[Paul Holes]

Yeah, two years later. You know, basically he's just. Any good interviewer is just going to hammer him on this. Let's say he's innocent and he finds out that this teenage girl that he had had sex with and impregnated had been murdered. You know, most certainly that would be an event that would kind of stick in his memory banks after two years. But the night before, or you know, the night of her before her body's found, for him to remember down to the minute on what he is doing and, you know, the, the number of things he was doing in this very brief period of time in which Katie is going to go out and meet with this Jack, which that's what she called him, you know, that it's so obvious that he has come up with something to try to show that he just could not have physically been with Katie at the time she was killed. And in essence he's now, this is like a, just a beacon flashing to law enforcement going, oh, he would have no reason to lie about this. If he's innocent, there's no way he would remember. I mean, the proper response would be, are you kidding me? Two years later and you want me to kind of figure out what I did that night?

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Yep.

[Paul Holes]

There's just no way.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

And it gets worse because he had another domestic worker working that night, she testified, and she said he got in at 9 o'. Clock. She knows because the clock in the study struck 9, so. So she knew he came in at 9 and Katie was seen with that man at 8:05, which is plenty of time. And I'm assuming investigators looked and there would be plenty of time for all that. So here's a conclusion. There are about a dozen witnesses that testify and, you know, this, to me, seems like a compelling case. Now, what do you think the grand jury is going to say here based on your, you know, account of the evidence? What do you. What do you think? Is there enough legally to at least have a trial for this guy or is there enough to convict him?

[Paul Holes]

Well, per the expected standards of today, no.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Okay.

[Paul Holes]

You know, because you take a look at what you really have is you have the letter and you have it signed Jack. Katie goes out supposedly to meet with Jack. However, you can't necessarily. I think you have the handwriting analysis that says this handwriting is consistent with Albert's. But two years later, you have absolutely no physical evidence that they could go after. They can't. First, they can't, you know, prove who's the father, the child. Right. Today we could. They can't prove Albert is present at the crime scene. You know, is there contact, DNA present, things that we could potentially look at, or is there any of his clothing that, you know, maybe he stepped in some of this. This blood that was spill. Is this razor got his bloody fingerprints on it or latent prints or his DNA on it? They have none of that.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Is there something under her nails that maybe they'd be able to pull? Did she fight back in any way like that? I mean, she's been punched. I don't know if she's just going to sit there and take that. Who knows?

[Paul Holes]

Yeah. So today there's a lot of things that we potentially would expect to at least pursue. And some of those things would show that, yes, Alberto, presence at the crime scene is there.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Yeah.

[Paul Holes]

What they're working with is very indirect. It's really weak, circumstantial. I just don't think that there's enough today in order to be able to convict or for a grand jury to indict. But back then, I think they probably put a lot of weight on the circumstances and not. And I'm not arguing that they're wrong. I'm just going, yeah, it's a. Relatively speaking. It's a weak case. It's sort of a. Oh, investigatively, this looks like the guy that I need to pursue and I need to figure out, you know, can I. Can I build a case against him or can I eliminate him and does somebody else become a better suspect?

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

You know, I don't think I've ever heard you use that phrase. Well, no, not based on the expectations of today. Which does put it in perspective. You know, this seems like an overwhelmingly good circumstantial case for 1892. I mean, rarely do you get witnesses, handwriting. This is. They've spent some money on this case. But ultimately the grand jury did not want to indict somebody who could have been innocent, and so they didn't indict him. So this is now officially a unsolved case. No arrests were ever made. Nothing ever happened. That's it.

[Paul Holes]

I guess I am surprised because I would have thought that back in 1890, I guess this would have been 1890. 1895, when the grand jury was evaluating the case.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Yeah.

[Paul Holes]

That this would have been something that they would have indicted on. Now, back then, with the grand jury, all that is, in essence is that they are saying, yes, we think that the state has sufficient evidence and now he would be going to trial. Is that kind of how things were back then?

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Yep. Same. Okay, so he didn't even get to trial.

[Paul Holes]

Well, probably today this would be a relatively easy case to prove.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Probably today he wouldn't have left behind the murder weapon and he would have been looking out for cctv. I mean, I think it would have been a different situation. I think one thing I had thought about with Sarah Cornell's case is, yes, she was drawn out to this desolate farm. Yes, she's found hanging from a haystack pole. And there's debate about whether or not she took her own life. Life or if she was murdered and if this is the man who did it. But, you know, my thought was, and I think I had asked you this for the book. Even if she is drawn out to this farm, there's an argument I'm not going to terminate the pregnancy. Go to hell. He could have left and somebody else could have murdered her. Still, there wasn't enough evidence actually saying he did it, he put his hands on her and did it. It could have been a weird circumstance and then you've convicted. I don't think that's the case with Albert, and I don't think it was the case. Case with. With Sarah Cornell. But then you. Then you're, you know, trying a capital case with. With somebody who's potentially innocent. It's dangerous.

[Paul Holes]

Yeah. You know, and there is depending on circumstances, but that. That is always sort of a. A potential defense is there was that window after the suspect or defendant left where somebody else could have come in and. And committed the crime, you know, but that. That's where now it's really. You're taking a look at the Totality of the circumstances, you know, and with, with Albert, you know, it really looks like he is one responsible for getting Katie pregnant. You have multiple witnesses. The veracity of their statements after two years is a little suspect, but you have multiple witnesses that are saying Katie was with Albert that night of the homicide. You know, he's lying about his alibi, you know, what he did that night, you know, so there, there's, there is churn about Albert for sure, you know, and it's sort of like, yeah, I think he's the one responsible. It's just, it's not a strong case, relatively speaking, you know, to what we would expect today that would be presented to a jury.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

This is why I don't like unsolved cases. I need a conclusion one way or the other. I know, and I know that's why you love unsolved cases. Case. This is why we're good partners. I can't stand it, but I. Yeah, I know you find them intriguing and you want to solve them, and I just want an answer and to be able to write about them and it's hard. Yeah.

[Paul Holes]

Different perspectives.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Yeah. Well, next week we will have a solved under three lines, three underlines, solved case. I'll be happy to present that to you. But in the meantime, I'm going to be thinking about Katie Dugan and her parents and just, man, I wish she had had justice here. 17 life in front of her. 17. Yeah, it's always very upsetting. But next week will be a very, very different case and I can't wait to present it to you.

[Paul Holes]

Okay, well, as always, I'm looking forward to it, Kate.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Okay, see you then.

[Paul Holes]

All right, sounds good.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

This has been an exactly right production.

[Paul Holes]

For our sources and notes go to exactlyrightmedia.com buriedbones sources.

[Sponsor Voice]

Our senior producer is Alexis Amorosi.

[Paul Holes]

Research by Maren McClashan, Ali Elkin and Kate Winkler Dawson.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Our mixing engineer is Ben Tolliday.

[Paul Holes]

Our theme song is by Tom Breivogel.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Our artwork is by Vanessa Lilac.

[Paul Holes]

Executive produced by Karen Kilgariff, Georgia Hardstark and Danielle Kramer.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

You can follow Buried Bones on Instagram, Instagram and Facebook.

[Paul Holes]

Erriedbones Pod, Kate's most recent book, all that is a Gilded age story of murder and the Race to decode the Criminal Mind is available now.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

And Paul's best selling memoir, My Life Solving America's Cold Cases, is also available now.

[Paul Holes]

Listen to Buried bones on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast.

[BetterHelp Sponsor Voice]

This is an ad by betterhelp We've all had that epic rideshare experience halfway through. You're best friends and they know your aspirations to go find yourself in Portugal. It's human. We're all looking for someone to listen. But not everyone is equipped to help. With over a decade of experience, BetterHelp matches you with the right therapist. See why they have a 4.9 rating out of 1.7 million client session reviews? Visit betterhelp.com for 10% off your first month.

[Sponsor Voice]

Every business has an ambition. PayPal Open is the platform designed to help you grow into yours with business loans so you can expand and access to hundreds of millions of PayPal customers worldwide. And your customers can pay all the ways they want with PayPal, Venmo, PayGoogle and all major cards so you can focus on scaling up when it's time to get growing. There's one platform for all business PayPal open grow today at PayPalOpen.com loans subject to approval in available locations.

Life's messy. We're talking spills, stains, pets and kids. But with Annabe, you never have to stress about messes again. @washablesofas.com Discover Anabe sofas the only fully machine washable sofas inside and out, starting at just $699. Made with liquid and stain resistant fabrics, that means fewer stains and more peace of mind. Designed for real life, our sofas feature changeable fabric covers allowing you to refresh your style anytime. Need flexibility? Our modular design lets you rearrange your sofa and effortlessly perfect for cozy apartments or spacious homes. Plus, they're earth friendly and built to last. That's why over 200,000 happy customers have made the switch. Upgrade your space today. Visit washablesofas.com now and bring home a sofa made for life. That's washablesofas.com offers are subject to change and certain restrictions may apply.